Wednesday, February 10, 2016

PHOENIX, KWAZULU-NATAL SOUTH AFRICA - SHANTEL PILLAY, 29, WAS MAULED TO DEATH BY A DRUG LORD'S 6 PIT BULLS

NEWS /10 Feb '16

By:CHARLENE SOMDUTH

Durban -

Shantel Pillay was an addict whose frequent visits to an infamous drug den in Phoenix left her family feeling worried and helpless for years Their biggest fear was realised on Saturday, when the 29-year-old
woman’s mutilated body was found in a stream just metres away from the
drug den. She had apparently been mauled by a pack of six pit bulls.

“We just stood in our home, shocked and devastated,” her younger
sister Angel told Post, describing how they had reacted to the news. “We
could not believe that Shantel was gone and that she died in such a
gruesome way.”

Fighting back tears, her parents, Roy and Judy Pillay, said too many
lives were being destroyed by drugs and authorities needed to take
action.

“Our youth are being drawn into drugs and nothing is being done to
stop these criminals. Police need to work harder in order to close down
their operations. Burying or cremating a child is the worse thing any
parent could go through,” said Judy, 56.

“We need to know what happened to our daughter and we want answers.”

As the distraught family prepared to bury their daughter on Tuesday,
they were eager to know the results of the post-mortem which was
conducted. According to a police source, Shantel had been MAULED BY SIX PIT BULLS OWNED BY THE ALLEGED DRUG LORD.

“A nearby resident heard her screams for help,” he said. “The
resident came to her aid, throwing stones at the dogs. They then ran
back into the property they came from. The resident contacted paramedics
and the SAPS.”

The source said chunks of flesh had been bitten from the woman’s legs as well as her neck, chest and arms.

“We believe she bled to death,” he said. “We are not sure how the
dogs got out of the property and police are looking at having those dogs
put down, pending the investigation.”

The attack came weeks after a Phoenix man, Rakesh Rampersad, 28, was attacked by his neighbour’s four pit bulls.

Shantel, who was unemployed, had left home around 5pm on Friday. When
she failed to return home that night, her family did not suspect
anything had happened to her because she would always return “in her own
time”, said her sister.

“My sister has been addicted to drugs for the past seven years. She
would leave home to go to the drug den and only return late at night in
an intoxicated state.”

But on Saturday morning, a relative and a friend broke the terrible news to them. Angel said despite her sister’s drug habits, she was a “loving, caring and giving person. Her drug problem left us feeling helpless and we did not know what
else to do. My sister left school at the age of 15 and started working
at various companies. She was doing well and living a good life. But at the age of 22 she
started going out and joining friends who had a bad influence on her and
became addicted to drugs.”

Angel said when her family first found out they had been furious and tried on numerous occasions to get her help.

“For a while she would remain clean from the drugs, but she always
went back to her old ways. As a family we did not know what else to do.
She became so focused on getting her next fix that nothing else
mattered. She even lost her job.”

The chairman of the Phoenix Policing Forum, Umesh Singh, said police,
together with KwaZulu-Natal Premier Senzo Mchunu, were tackling the
drug problem in Phoenix through an active programme, which included
zeroing in on known drug dens.

“We understand that drugs are rife in the community and many
youngsters like Shantel are dying because of the trade,” Singh said.
“Since the start of the programme we have been receiving tip-offs from
the community, and it is only their help that will assist us with
driving these dealers out of Phoenix.”

Police spokesman Major Thulani Zwane said a case of culpable homicide was being investigated in relation to Shantel’s death. Anyone with information about the incident is asked to contact the Phoenix police station at 031 502 2300/2354.

2 comments:

Why are they trying to make this death be about drugs? If this addicted woman hadn't passed these pit bulls' yard, but instead a healthy, drug-free jogger had, the pit bulls would have killed the jogger.

This story doesn't illustrate drug problems. It illustrates the world-wide pit bull plague.

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.